Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts

A Day at Guantanamo Bay.... If you are a Terror Suspect WARNING GRAPHIC!

Before It's News
January 14, 2014

Warning: Graphic

On the 12th anniversary of Guantanamo Bay this weekend, six years after President Obama vowed to close his ‘Death Camp,’ human rights defenders protested outside the White House, at the National Museum of History, and at dozens of places across the nation, demanding he keep his promise in the name of human rights.

“What’s going on there has been hidden from the American people by enlarge,” said one protester in Medford, Oregon at Vogel Plaza. “There’s little squibs of information that come out from time to time, but mostly people don’t have any real knowledge about Guantanamo.”
To help remedy that, Channel 4 created the program. 

Warning: What you are about to view here below is graphic and disturbing. Brief nudity.

Photo Credit: Witness For Torture
Video: Channel 4, YouTube

Obama Suppresses Bush Torture Files

The LipTV
December 24, 2013

Matheny's Note: Obama's Just looking out for his good ole' cousin

Warning: Some Explicit Language 

"Bombing" Distracts Public While Report Accusing U.S. Officials of Torture go Under-reported.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!!!
Mark Matheny
April 23, 2013

Mark Matheny discusses how the NY Times brought out a report accusing "top level" gov. officials of torture on the same day the Boston Bombings took place, and how the Media chose to follow the bombings while ignoring the report.

Related articles:

Assassination of Lincoln : A History of the Great Conspiracy (1890)
http://www.reformation.org/surratt.html

New report Calls Evidence of U.S. Torture Indisputable
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/15120-new-report-calls-evidence-of-u-s-torture-indisputable

The Boston bombings and the 2nd Amendment
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/the_boston_bombings_and_the_2nd_amendment.html


Listen to internet radio with Mark Matheny on Blog Talk Radio

TRIALS WITHOUT CRIMES OR EVIDENCE

A detainee in Guantánamo Bay. (Photo: Brennan Linsley/Associated Press)
Global Research
April 24, 2012



Andy Worthington is a superb reporter who has specialized in providing the facts of the US government’s illegal abuse of “detainees,” against whom no evidence exists. (http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/ ) In an effort to create evidence, the US government has illegally resorted to torture. Torture produces false confessions, plea bargains, and false testimony against others in order to escape further torture.

For these reasons, in Anglo-American law self-incrimination secured through torture has been impermissible evidence for centuries. So also has been secret evidence withheld from the accused and his attorney. Secret evidence cannot be confronted. Secret evidence is distrusted as made-up in order to convict the innocent. The evidence is secret because it cannot stand the light of day.

The US government relies on secret evidence in its cases against alleged terrorists, claiming that national security would be threatened if the evidence were revealed. This is abject nonsense. It is an absurd claim that presenting evidence against a terrorist jeopardizes the national security of the United States.

To the contrary, not presenting evidence jeopardizes the security of each and every one of us. Once the government can convict defendants on the basis of secret evidence, even the concept of a fair trial will disappear. Fair trials are already history, but the concept lingers.

Secret evidence murders the concept of a fair trial. It murders justice and the rule of law. Secret evidence means anyone can be convicted of anything. As in Kafka’s The Trial, people will cease to know the crimes for which they are being tried and convicted.

This extraordinary development in Anglo-American law, a development demanded by the unaccountable Bush/Obama Regime, has not resulted in impeachment proceedings; nor has it caused an uproar from Congress, the federal courts, the presstitute media, law schools, constitutional scholars, and bar associations.
Having bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory, Americans just want someone to pay. They don’t care who as long as someone pays. To accommodate this desire, the government has produced some “high value detainees” with Arab or Muslim names. But instead of bringing these alleged malefactors to trial and presenting evidence against them, the government has kept them in torture dungeons for years trying to create through the application of pain and psychological breakdown guilt by self-incrimination in order to create a case against them.

The government has been unsuccessful and has nothing that it can bring to a real court. So the Bush/Obama Regime created and recreated “military tribunals” to lend “national security” credence to the absolute need that non-existent evidence be kept secret.

Andy Worthington in his numerous reports does a good job in providing the history of the detainees and their treatment. He deserves our commendation and support. But what I want to do is to ask some questions, not of Worthington, but about the idea that the US is under terrorist threat.

By this September, 9/11 will be eleven years ago. Yet despite the War on Terror, the loss of Americans’ privacy and civil liberties, an expenditure of trillions of dollars on numerous wars, violations of US and international laws against torture, and so forth, no one has been held accountable. Neither the perpetrators nor those whom the perpetrators outwitted, assuming that they are different people, have been held accountable. Going on 11 years and no trials of villains or chastisement of negligent public officials. This is remarkable.

The government’s account of 9/11 implies massive failure of all US security and intelligence agencies along with those of our NATO puppets and Israel’s Mossad. The government’s official line also implies the failure of the National Security Council, NORAD and the US Air Force, Air Traffic Control, Airport Security four times in one hour on the same morning. It implies the failure of the President, the Vice President, the National Security Adviser, the Secretary of Defense.

Many on the left and also libertarians find this apparent failure of the centralized and oppressive government so hopeful that they cling to the official “government failure” explanation of 9/11. However, such massive failure is simply unbelievable. How in the world could the US have survived the cold war with the Soviets if the US government were so totally incompetent?

Yonas Fikre, US Muslim, Claims He Was Tortured At FBI's Behest In United Arab Emirates

Yonas Fikre, center, a Portland, Oregon Muslim American talks to media with his U.S. attorney Thomas Nelson, left, and Swedish lawyer Hans Bredberg, right, in Stockholm, Sweden, April 18, 2012. After a 2010 trip to visit family in Khartoum, Sudan, Fikre claims to have been detained and tortured. Put on a FBI no-fly list, Fikre is now unable to return home to the U.S. (AP Photo / Claudio Bresciani)
Huffington Post
April 18, 2012



PORTLAND, Ore. — His interrogators usually came in the morning. Peeking under a blindfold in a cold concrete cell, Yonas Fikre says he caught only glimpses of their shoes.
They beat the soles of his feet with hoses and sticks, asking him about his Portland, Ore., mosque and its imam. Each day, the men questioning him in a United Arab Emirates prison told the 33-year-old Fikre he would be released "tomorrow," according to an account he gave on Wednesday at a press conference in Sweden, where he has been since September.
"It was very hard, because you don't know why you are in there and the only person you speak to is either yourself, or the wall, or when you go to the restroom or when you go to the torture place," said Fikre, who was held for 106 days. "I have never been that isolated from human beings in my entire life."
An advocacy group alleges that over the past two years the FBI has been using aggressive tactics against Muslim-Americans travelling abroad to try to pressure them to become informants when they got home. Gadeir Abbas, staff attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, says there have been several instances of FBI agents calling travelers into embassies or consulates for questioning.

Video of Boy Shocked 31 Times For Not Removing Coat Finally Released


Editor's Note: Torture is torture no matter if it's a young boy or a terrorist! This is why we have the Geneva Convention, and rules against "cruel and unusual punishment" !!!
Heather Callaghan
Activist Post
April 14, 2012

“I never signed up for him to be tortured, terrorized and abused,” Cheryl McCollins told a jury on Tuesday. “I had no idea, no idea, that they tortured the children in the school.”
In February, we reported Ms. McCollins’ plight and her calling for the public viewing of startling footage of her then 18 year-old son, Andre, receiving 31 electroshocks at Judge Rotenburg Center for the disabled (JRC) for not removing his jacket.
In 2002, Andre, now 27, had been zapped, restrained, sprawled out face down with a helmet, and shocked another 30 times anytime he flinched or screamed out in pain. The aversive shock “treatment” continued all day with no food, water, or bathroom breaks.
When Cheryl visited her son, he was unresponsive and later rushed to the hospital where he was diagnosed with acute stress response.
McCollins is suing Canton, MA-based JRC and calling the treatment torture. Cheryl wanted the public to see this “therapy” as an unacceptable act of torture.
Of course, JRC fought vigorously to block the video release. A new Superior Court Judge on the case, Judge Barbara Dortch-Okara, refused JRC’s repeated request allowing public-court viewing for the first time.
Cheryl also testified that the staff members were laughing as Andre was shocked.
JRC said Fox’s coverage of the footage would make it impossible for JRC to receive a fair trial. You will soon see why.
Warning: Even this newsclip revealing moments of Andre’s shock abuse is hard to watch.

Obama’s change: From kidnapping and torture to assassination

RT News
January 2, 2012


The promise to scrap his predecessor’s hardliner war-on-terror policies, which helped Barack Obama win presidential election, is apparently off the table. The political reality is that the current administration is doing quite the opposite thing.
Long before he became US president or the winner of a Noble Peace Prize, Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor. During his election campaign he vowed to reverse the abuses and policies of his predecessor George W. Bush.
U.S. President Barack Obama/REUTERS/Larry Downing

Three years later, many civil rights advocates, who once cheered “yes, we can,” are finding themselves disillusioned.
"Not only has the Obama administration blocked torture accountability and refused to investigate and prosecute. He has basically maintained indefinite detention. He has revived military commissions. As well he has expanded targeted killings - they've increased under the Obama administration manifold, and he's even authorized the killing of a US citizen," explains Maria LaHood from the Center for Constitutional Rights.
World-renowned author and scholar Noam Chomsky believes the Obama administration has changed gears and accelerated illegal practices into overdrive.
"There is a shift between Bush's policies and the Obama's on this. Bush's policy was to kidnap people, take them to Guantanamo or Bagram or some other torture chamber and try to extract some information from them. Obama's policy is just to kill them. They're killing them all over the world. And the Bin Laden assassination was a case point," he told RT.
Another was the drone killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric. President Obama described the man as “the leader of external operations for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.”
Apart from those two are hundreds more killed by US UAVs. The number of drone strikes during the first two years under Obama exceeded the total carried out during Bush’s 10 years.
"If a President McCain were doing the exact same thing that President Obama is doing, he would have been denounced by a lot of liberals. It's one of those dangerous moments in the US history. We saw it a bit with Clinton in the 1990s, where a democrat campaigned and pledged to change the country and the world has actually pushed the right-wing agenda further forward than a republican could have if they took the power," says New York-based journalist and author Jeremy Scahill.
As Obama gears up for his re-election campaign, civil liberties groups that believed his words the first time around are now left to judge the commander-in-chief on his actions.